Health promotion and disease prevention registries in the EU: a cross country comparison.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPRs), also called 'best practice portals', serve as entry points and practical repositories that provide decision-makers with easy access to (evidence-based) practices. However, there is limited knowledge of differences or overlaps of howe current national HPPRs in Europe function, the context and circumstances in which these HPPRs were developed, and the mechanisms utilised by each HPPR for the assessment, classification and quality improvement of the included practices. This study prepared an overview of different approaches in several national HPPRs and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP) as well as identified commonalities and differences among the core characteristics of the HPPRs. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive comparison - that focused on six European countries with existing or recently developed/implemented national HPPR and the EU BPP -to create a comparative overview. We used coding mechanisms to identify commonalities and differences; we performed data management, collection and building consensus during EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group meetings. RESULTS: All HPPRs offer a broad range of health promotion and disease-prevention practices and serve to support practitioners, policymakers and researchers in selecting practices. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned, requiring the application of assessment criteria that differ among the HPPRs. While all HPPRs collect and share recommendable practices, others have implemented further measures to improve the quality of the submitted practices. Different dissemination tools and strategies are employed to promote the use of the HPPRs, including social media, newsletters and publications as well as capacity building workshops for practice owners or technical options to connect citizens/patients with local practices. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between HPPRs (at national and EU level) is appreciated, especially regarding the use consistent terminology to avoid misinterpretation, facilitate cross-country comparison and enable discussions on the adaption of assessment criteria by national HPPRs. Greater efforts are needed to promote the actual implementation and transfer of practices at the national level to address public health challenges with proven and effective practices.

Recommendations for Effective Intersectoral Collaboration in Health Promotion Interventions: Results from Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS Work Package 5 Activities.

The burden of chronic disease in Europe continues to grow. A major challenge facing national governments is how to tackle the risk factors of sedentary lifestyle, alcohol abuse, smoking, and unhealthy diet. These factors are complex and necessitate intersectoral collaboration to strengthen health promotion, counter-act the social determinants of health, and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease. European countries have diverse intersectoral collaboration to encourage health promotion activities. In the Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS success factors for intersectoral collaboration within and outside healthcare which strengthen health promotion activities were identified with a mixed method design via a survey of 22 project partners in 14 countries and 2 workshops. In six semi-structured interviews, the mechanisms underlying these success factors were examined. These mechanisms can be very context-specific but do give more insight into how they can be replicated. In this paper, 20 health promotion interventions from national programs in CHRODIS PLUS are explored. This includes community interventions, policy actions, integrated approaches, capacity building, and training activities. The interventions involved collaboration across three to more than six sectors. The conclusion is a set of seven recommendations that are considered to be essential for fostering intersectoral collaboration to improve health-promoting activities.

Центр здорового образа жизни в Нидерландах: создание устойчивого потенциала и альянсов для эффективного содействия укреплению здоровья: информационный обзор по передовому опыту

Центр здорового образа жизни Национального института общественного здравоохранения и окружающей среды (RIVM) является национальным центром интеграции экспертных знаний в области укрепления здоровья в Нидерландах. Основные направления деятельности центра – систематическая оценка качества вмешательств, ведение веб-портала, дополненного специальными веб-сайтами, а также индивидуальная очная поддержка, обучение и инструктирование. Центр является примером руководящей роли национального правительства в вопросах укрепления здоровья, выраженной как функциями местных органов власти, так и различными специализированными институтами укрепления здоровья на национальном уровне. Сформированный на базе RIVM, Центр работает с широким кругом партнеров в секторе здравоохранения и за его пределами. Он занимается сбором, обработкой и распространением информации, которая затем “переводится” в практические инструменты, которые могут применяться на низовом уровне. Проведенная оценка продемонстрировала успех Центра в содействии последовательному укреплению здоровья в Нидерландах. Его систематический подход к оценке качества вмешательств играет важную роль в продвижении межсекторальной политики и практики укрепления здоровья во всей стране. Каждый месяц на веб-портал Gezondleven.nl загружается в среднем 14 000 человек, и 5000 человек загружаются в базу данных мер вмешательства.

Centre for Healthy Living in the Netherlands: building sustainable capacity and alliances for effective health promotion: good practice brief

The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Centre for Healthy Living serves as the national hub for integrated expertise on health promotion in the Netherlands. Key activities are a systematic procedure to assess the quality of interventions, a web portal complemented by specific websites and tailored face-to-face support, training and coaching. It is an example of how a national government has taken up its stewardship role for health promotion, shaped by both local government responsibilities and a variety of theme-specific health promotion institutes operating nationally. Based in the RIVM, the Centre works with a wide range of partners within and outside the health sector. It gathers, enriches and disseminates knowledge, which is then “translated” into practical tools that can be applied at grassroots level. An evaluation has demonstrated the Centre’s success in fostering coherent health promotion in the Netherlands. Its systematic approach to assessing the quality of interventions is instrumental in advancing intersectoral health promotion policy and practice across the country. Each month, an average of 14 000 individuals access it on the Gezondleven.nl web portal, and 5000 individuals access the intervention database.

Towards evidence-based, quality-controlled health promotion: the Dutch recognition system for health promotion interventions.

Registration or recognition systems for best-practice health promotion interventions may contribute to better quality assurance and control in health promotion practice. In the Netherlands, such a system has been developed and is being implemented aiming to provide policy makers and professionals with more information on the quality and effectiveness of available health promotion interventions and to promote use of good-practice and evidence-based interventions by health promotion organizations. The quality assessments are supervised by the Netherlands Organization for Public Health and the Environment and the Netherlands Youth Institute and conducted by two committees, one for interventions aimed at youth and one for adults. These committees consist of experts in the fields of research, policy and practice. Four levels of recognition are distinguished inspired by the UK Medical Research Council's evaluation framework for complex interventions to improve health: (i) theoretically sound, (ii) probable effectiveness, (iii) established effectiveness, and (iv) established cost effectiveness. Specific criteria have been set for each level of recognition, except for Level 4 which will be included from 2011. This point of view article describes and discusses the rationale, organization and criteria of this Dutch recognition system and the first experiences with the system.